Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
How can I examine a file to see which encoder was used to compress it to MP3? I
use Adobe Audition 1.5, which uses the Fraunhofer codec, but I can't prove it. In fact, TagScanner reports it as Lame. I used to have a utility that was pretty good about it, but I cannot remember what it was. I've tried iTunes, MP3tag, TagScanner, foobar2000, and VLC. Thanks. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
On 02 Apr 2014, mcp6453 wrote in rec.audio.pro:
How can I examine a file to see which encoder was used to compress it to MP3? I use Adobe Audition 1.5, which uses the Fraunhofer codec, but I can't prove it. In fact, TagScanner reports it as Lame. I used to have a utility that was pretty good about it, but I cannot remember what it was. I've tried iTunes, MP3tag, TagScanner, foobar2000, and VLC. Not all mp3s contain that info. If it does, MediaInfo can read it. http://mediaarea.net/en/MediaInfo [Be careful when installing - the installer contains foistware that will try to get you to install other potentially unwanted programs. You can avoid it by paying careful attention to the prompts when installing and declining any offers you see pop up. You can also choose to download the version without the installer and install it yourself, which will avoid the issue.] |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
On 4/2/2014 5:11 PM, Nil wrote:
On 02 Apr 2014, mcp6453 wrote in rec.audio.pro: How can I examine a file to see which encoder was used to compress it to MP3? I use Adobe Audition 1.5, which uses the Fraunhofer codec, but I can't prove it. In fact, TagScanner reports it as Lame. I used to have a utility that was pretty good about it, but I cannot remember what it was. I've tried iTunes, MP3tag, TagScanner, foobar2000, and VLC. Not all mp3s contain that info. If it does, MediaInfo can read it. http://mediaarea.net/en/MediaInfo [Be careful when installing - the installer contains foistware that will try to get you to install other potentially unwanted programs. You can avoid it by paying careful attention to the prompts when installing and declining any offers you see pop up. You can also choose to download the version without the installer and install it yourself, which will avoid the issue.] From what I can tell, it does not show that the Audition file was encoded with the Fraunhofer codec. I guess there's no way to know for sure. Thanks for the recommendation. It's a useful little program. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
mcp6453 wrote: "- show quoted text -
From what I can tell, it does not show that the Audition file was encoded with the Fraunhofer codec. I guess there's no way to know for sure. Thanks for the recommendation. It's a useful little program. " Actually you can tell if Fraunhofer was used - by loading mp3 into a DAW and spectroing it. If bitrate is 160kb or under, you should see a definite lowpass shelf at 17kHz or lower. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
On 02 Apr 2014, mcp6453 wrote in rec.audio.pro:
On 4/2/2014 5:11 PM, Nil wrote: Not all mp3s contain that info. If it does, MediaInfo can read it. http://mediaarea.net/en/MediaInfo [Be careful when installing - the installer contains foistware that will try to get you to install other potentially unwanted programs. You can avoid it by paying careful attention to the prompts when installing and declining any offers you see pop up. You can also choose to download the version without the installer and install it yourself, which will avoid the issue.] From what I can tell, it does not show that the Audition file was encoded with the Fraunhofer codec. I guess there's no way to know for sure. I just tried it myself, and you're right. Saving audio as mp3 from Audition 1.5 doesn't stamp the file with any encoder information. Other tools I use do. I mostly use LAME, and MediaInfo shows: "Writing library: LAME3.99r" for those. Thanks for the recommendation. It's a useful little program. Yes, it is! I just discovered it a couple of weeks ago myself. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
Nil wrote: "Are you claiming that not other encoder can do that? I doubt it. "
No. But what I do know, in my setup, is that Exact Audio Copy produces steeply high-freq-shelved mp3s, where as iTunes' roll off smoothly up to 20khz whether encoding at 128, 256, or 320kb. My iTunes and EAC both use LAME, although EAC's is a decimal point or two older version plugin than the one in iTunes. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
Nil wrote: "Are you claiming that not other encoder can do that? I doubt it. "
No. But what I do know, in my setup, is that Exact Audio Copy produces steeply high-freq-shelved mp3s, where as iTunes' and Windows Media Player's roll off smoothly up to 20khz whether encoding at 128, 256, or 320kb. My iTunes and EAC both use LAME, although EAC's is a decimal point or two older version plugin than the one in iTunes. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
Nil wrote: "On 03 Apr 2014, wrote in rec.audio.pro:
- show quoted text - What does that have to do with your initial statement about Fraunhofer? " MP3s encoded strictly to the original Fraunhofer codec shelf off steeply in the mid-high teens. 128kb @ 16kHz, 256 @ 19kHz, etc. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
I think you are misusing the term "shelve" but we know what you mean.
Mark |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
"mcp6453" wrote in message ... How can I examine a file to see which encoder was used to compress it to MP3? I use Adobe Audition 1.5, which uses the Fraunhofer codec, but I can't prove it. In fact, TagScanner reports it as Lame. I used to have a utility that was pretty good about it, but I cannot remember what it was. I've tried iTunes, MP3tag, TagScanner, foobar2000, and VLC. Thanks. It's an MP3 file... it doesn't matter. MP3s are about 1/10 the file size of the original CDA or WAV file stored on a CD. You're not going to get any good quality from it. Try switching to a LOSSLESS compression CODEC and then it matters. MP3s are garbage!!!! I never listen to them, even on my iPOD. Shaun |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
"Nil" wrote in message
... On 03 Apr 2014, wrote in rec.audio.pro: Nil wrote: "Are you claiming that not other encoder can do that? I doubt it. " No. But what I do know, in my setup, is that Exact Audio Copy produces steeply high-freq-shelved mp3s, where as iTunes' and Windows Media Player's roll off smoothly up to 20khz whether encoding at 128, 256, or 320kb. My iTunes and EAC both use LAME, although EAC's is a decimal point or two older version plugin than the one in iTunes. What does that have to do with your initial statement about Fraunhofer? He has no idea. He's just gibbering. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 19:48:13 -0500, Shaun wrote:
"mcp6453" wrote in message ... How can I examine a file to see which encoder was used to compress it to MP3? I use Adobe Audition 1.5, which uses the Fraunhofer codec, but I can't prove it. In fact, TagScanner reports it as Lame. I used to have a utility that was pretty good about it, but I cannot remember what it was. I've tried iTunes, MP3tag, TagScanner, foobar2000, and VLC. Thanks. It's an MP3 file... it doesn't matter. MP3s are about 1/10 the file size of the original CDA or WAV file stored on a CD. You're not going to get any good quality from it. Try switching to a LOSSLESS compression CODEC and then it matters. MP3s are garbage!!!! I never listen to them, even on my iPOD. Shaun Good for you Shaun. You've really added to the conversation. You've shown your comprehensive knowledge of codecs and wrappers. And throwing in technical terms like "garbage" really provides sauce for the discourse. SteveK |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
"S. King" wrote in message ... On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 19:48:13 -0500, Shaun wrote: "mcp6453" wrote in message ... How can I examine a file to see which encoder was used to compress it to MP3? I use Adobe Audition 1.5, which uses the Fraunhofer codec, but I can't prove it. In fact, TagScanner reports it as Lame. I used to have a utility that was pretty good about it, but I cannot remember what it was. I've tried iTunes, MP3tag, TagScanner, foobar2000, and VLC. Thanks. It's an MP3 file... it doesn't matter. MP3s are about 1/10 the file size of the original CDA or WAV file stored on a CD. You're not going to get any good quality from it. Try switching to a LOSSLESS compression CODEC and then it matters. MP3s are garbage!!!! I never listen to them, even on my iPOD. Shaun Good for you Shaun. You've really added to the conversation. You've shown your comprehensive knowledge of codecs and wrappers. And throwing in technical terms like "garbage" really provides sauce for the discourse. SteveK LOL !!..... OK I have heard that LAME is the best MP3 encoder out there and if you use 192 or 256 Kbps rates you will get the best sound from an MP3. MP3s are a LOSSY compression algorithm meaning that parts of the original sound from the source (most likely a CD) are removed when converted to MP3. When they add the left and right channels together and then subtract; L - R (sum and difference) you typically reduced the required file size of the music to around 55% from the original size; you can get all of the original sound back, Left and Right channels by reversing the math. Another example to reduce the file size would be to remove a softer sound right after a loud sound, because most people will not hear the softer sound anyway. After the MP3 codec compresses the music file, you will loose enough of the music that if played on a good stereo, it will not sound the same and you loose the effect (emotion) of the music. IF you use a lossless compression codec such as FLAC which is free to use and Foobar 2000 has a plugin for it, your saved music will sound much better at playback, but it will take up more room on the harddrive. Shaun |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
On 5/04/2014 10:30 p.m., Shaun wrote:
LOL !!..... OK I have heard that LAME is the best MP3 encoder out there and if you use 192 or 256 Kbps rates you will get the best sound from an MP3. Naa . It's lame. Now THAT'S added to the conversation. geoff |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
On 05/04/2014 10:30, Shaun wrote:
"S. King" wrote in message ... On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 19:48:13 -0500, Shaun wrote: "mcp6453" wrote in message ... How can I examine a file to see which encoder was used to compress it to MP3? I use Adobe Audition 1.5, which uses the Fraunhofer codec, but I can't prove it. In fact, TagScanner reports it as Lame. I used to have a utility that was pretty good about it, but I cannot remember what it was. I've tried iTunes, MP3tag, TagScanner, foobar2000, and VLC. Thanks. It's an MP3 file... it doesn't matter. MP3s are about 1/10 the file size of the original CDA or WAV file stored on a CD. You're not going to get any good quality from it. Try switching to a LOSSLESS compression CODEC and then it matters. MP3s are garbage!!!! I never listen to them, even on my iPOD. Shaun Good for you Shaun. You've really added to the conversation. You've shown your comprehensive knowledge of codecs and wrappers. And throwing in technical terms like "garbage" really provides sauce for the discourse. SteveK LOL !!..... OK I have heard that LAME is the best MP3 encoder out there and if you use 192 or 256 Kbps rates you will get the best sound from an MP3. MP3s are a LOSSY compression algorithm meaning that parts of the original sound from the source (most likely a CD) are removed when converted to MP3. When they add the left and right channels together and then subtract; L - R (sum and difference) you typically reduced the required file size of the music to around 55% from the original size; you can get all of the original sound back, Left and Right channels by reversing the math. Another example to reduce the file size would be to remove a softer sound right after a loud sound, because most people will not hear the softer sound anyway. After the MP3 codec compresses the music file, you will loose enough of the music that if played on a good stereo, it will not sound the same and you loose the effect (emotion) of the music. IF you use a lossless compression codec such as FLAC which is free to use and Foobar 2000 has a plugin for it, your saved music will sound much better at playback, but it will take up more room on the harddrive. FYI, LAME (As in "LAME Ain't an Mp3 Encoder" according to the website and manual), is not an MP3 encoder. It is a "clean room" engineered lossy perceptual encoder that produces mp3 compatible files. The only *true* mp3 encoders are the Fraunhofer one, and a few others that licence the Fraunhofer technology. The Fraunhofer encoder is optimised to produce its best results at 128 kbps constant bit rate, as that is what the design brief specified. It actually sounds worse at 256k than at 128k. For what it's worth, there are very few people who can tell a 320kbps mp3 file produced by LAME from a CD quality file when they are compared blind on decent equipment. Almost anyone can spot the 256k file on even cheap equipment. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
"John Williamson" wrote in message ... On 05/04/2014 10:30, Shaun wrote: "S. King" wrote in message ... On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 19:48:13 -0500, Shaun wrote: "mcp6453" wrote in message ... How can I examine a file to see which encoder was used to compress it to MP3? I use Adobe Audition 1.5, which uses the Fraunhofer codec, but I can't prove it. In fact, TagScanner reports it as Lame. I used to have a utility that was pretty good about it, but I cannot remember what it was. I've tried iTunes, MP3tag, TagScanner, foobar2000, and VLC. Thanks. It's an MP3 file... it doesn't matter. MP3s are about 1/10 the file size of the original CDA or WAV file stored on a CD. You're not going to get any good quality from it. Try switching to a LOSSLESS compression CODEC and then it matters. MP3s are garbage!!!! I never listen to them, even on my iPOD. Shaun Good for you Shaun. You've really added to the conversation. You've shown your comprehensive knowledge of codecs and wrappers. And throwing in technical terms like "garbage" really provides sauce for the discourse. SteveK LOL !!..... OK I have heard that LAME is the best MP3 encoder out there and if you use 192 or 256 Kbps rates you will get the best sound from an MP3. MP3s are a LOSSY compression algorithm meaning that parts of the original sound from the source (most likely a CD) are removed when converted to MP3. When they add the left and right channels together and then subtract; L - R (sum and difference) you typically reduced the required file size of the music to around 55% from the original size; you can get all of the original sound back, Left and Right channels by reversing the math. Another example to reduce the file size would be to remove a softer sound right after a loud sound, because most people will not hear the softer sound anyway. After the MP3 codec compresses the music file, you will loose enough of the music that if played on a good stereo, it will not sound the same and you loose the effect (emotion) of the music. IF you use a lossless compression codec such as FLAC which is free to use and Foobar 2000 has a plugin for it, your saved music will sound much better at playback, but it will take up more room on the harddrive. FYI, LAME (As in "LAME Ain't an Mp3 Encoder" according to the website and manual), is not an MP3 encoder. It is a "clean room" engineered lossy perceptual encoder that produces mp3 compatible files. The only *true* mp3 encoders are the Fraunhofer one, and a few others that licence the Fraunhofer technology. The Fraunhofer encoder is optimised to produce its best results at 128 kbps constant bit rate, as that is what the design brief specified. It actually sounds worse at 256k than at 128k. For what it's worth, there are very few people who can tell a 320kbps mp3 file produced by LAME from a CD quality file when they are compared blind on decent equipment. Almost anyone can spot the 256k file on even cheap equipment. -- Tciao for Now! John. Well... I didn't know that, thanks for the education! Apparently Sirius XM and many other streaming internet audio sources use 128 Kbps as well and claim it is CD quality, I do find that music from a CD played from a good quality player sounds better than a good Sirius XM receiver, I'm using a Cambridge Audio Tuner connect to a good stereo system!. Also Bluetooth wireless audio uses 128 Kbps too and if you have TX and RX hardware that uses the new apt-X Codec and Bluetooth Audio 2.0 driver for Windows, it is suppose to be CD Quality. I have ordered the hardware and Hopefully experience it in three weeks, I will see if I can tell the difference. Shaun |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
John Williamson wrote:
For what it's worth, there are very few people who can tell a 320kbps mp3 file produced by LAME from a CD quality file when they are compared blind on decent equipment. Almost anyone can spot the 256k file on even cheap equipment. What's really interesting is that sometimes it's easier to tell on cheap equipment. I can tell the difference between MP3 data rates more easily on Auratones than on the big full-range monitors with some source material. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
In article , Shaun wrote:
Well... I didn't know that, thanks for the education! Apparently Sirius XM and many other streaming internet audio sources use 128 Kbps as well and claim it is CD quality, I do find that music from a CD played from a good quality player sounds better than a good Sirius XM receiver, I'm using a Cambridge Audio Tuner connect to a good stereo system!. Sirius uses their own proprietary codecs (more than one of them), so comparing data rates with MP3 files or streams is comparing apples and oranges. That said, the higher rate Sirius channels sound pretty awful on the top end; cymbals turn into white noise. Also Bluetooth wireless audio uses 128 Kbps too and if you have TX and RX hardware that uses the new apt-X Codec and Bluetooth Audio 2.0 driver for Windows, it is suppose to be CD Quality. I have ordered the hardware and Hopefully experience it in three weeks, I will see if I can tell the difference. Okay, APT-X is another completely different thing, it's a codec that is optimized for low latency at the expense of sound quality and data rates. This is absolutely critical for realtime applications like carrying on a telephone conversation, but it's overall a loss for applications like direct file playback. Again you can't compare an MPEG data stream at a given data rate with an APT-X data stream at the same data rate; they are apples and oranges. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
"Shaun" wrote in message ... OK I have heard that LAME is the best MP3 encoder out there and if you use 192 or 256 Kbps rates you will get the best sound from an MP3. The person who told you that has never heard of 320kbs MP3 then? IF you use a lossless compression codec such as FLAC your saved music will sound much better at playback, but it will take up more room on the harddrive. Thanks for stating the bleeding obvious! Trevor. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
"John Williamson" wrote in message ... FYI, LAME (As in "LAME Ain't an Mp3 Encoder" according to the website and manual), is not an MP3 encoder. It is a "clean room" engineered lossy perceptual encoder that produces mp3 compatible files. Yep, that's what they need to say to avoid copyright issues. :-) Trevor. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
"Trevor" wrote in message ... "Shaun" wrote in message ... OK I have heard that LAME is the best MP3 encoder out there and if you use 192 or 256 Kbps rates you will get the best sound from an MP3. The person who told you that has never heard of 320kbs MP3 then? IF you use a lossless compression codec such as FLAC your saved music will sound much better at playback, but it will take up more room on the harddrive. Thanks for stating the bleeding obvious! Trevor. I have read in the past that using a 320Kbps MP3 does not improve the sound any more that bitrates of 192Kbps or 256Kbps, They claim it was a waste of extra space. That was a few years ago and the source of this info was not known but I have read this from several different websites, that is why I didn't mention 320Kbps. If someone is trying to get the best sound, it would make sense to switch to a lossless codec to start with. Shaun |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
On 06/04/2014 10:57, Shaun wrote:
I have read in the past that using a 320Kbps MP3 does not improve the sound any more that bitrates of 192Kbps or 256Kbps, They claim it was a waste of extra space. That was a few years ago and the source of this info was not known but I have read this from several different websites, that is why I didn't mention 320Kbps. If someone is trying to get the best sound, it would make sense to switch to a lossless codec to start with. The last comment is right, and with the cost of storage falling all the time, it makes more sense as time goes on. The only problem is that lossless schemes can't compress by much more than 50%, and even with ubiquitous 3G and broadband, it still take a fairly long time and potentially costs a lot to transfer a FLAC file. The claim that 320kbps mp3 wasn't worth the extra storage costs over was made in a time when storage was relatively expensive. It was mostly an economic decision, as the quality difference has been constant. When I started using mp3 for portable music playback, I used 128kbps, as that was then the standard, and replaced the cassettes and Minidisks I used to carry. I fairly quickly moved over to 128kbps average at a variable bit rate for better sound and the same file sie, and as storage has got cheaper, I've been able to afford higher bitrate mp3 storage. The only thing I have a problem understanding now is why it is so hard to by a portable music player with a decent amount of storage, as most of the top out at 16 Gigabytes. The one I use daya to day has 250Gig on board. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
On 4/6/2014 6:26 AM, John Williamson wrote:
I fairly quickly moved over to 128kbps average at a variable bit rate for better sound and the same file sie, and as storage has got cheaper, I've been able to afford higher bitrate mp3 storage. The only thing I have a problem understanding now is why it is so hard to by a portable music player with a decent amount of storage, as most of the top out at 16 Gigabytes. The one I use daya to day has 250Gig on board. Great googly moogly! What can you possibly do with 250 GB of compressed audio files in your pocket? How do you even remember what you have stored on there? You'd need a computer to keep track. Wait a minute. You HAVE a computer. I don't even have a drive that large in any of my computers. I load up my 4 GB MP3 player with 128 or 192kbps files, mostly 1, 2, or 3 hour radio programs and I usually don't get through it on a two week trip away from home. And you know what? When listening through a car radio, particularly in my own car which has neither a USB host port nor a line input so I use a cassette adapter, my life wouldn't be any better if I was playing 24/96 PCM files. Your tripping experience obviously differs. The big downward jump I saw with these things was when an iPod had a 20 GB hard drive and its solid state replacement was considerably smaller. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
Trevor wrote: ...
OK I have heard that LAME is the best MP3 encoder out there and if you use 192 or 256 Kbps rates you will get the best sound from an MP3. The person who told you that has never heard of 320kbs MP3 then? " And this raises the issue I brought up a couple years ago: That many of my mp3s encoded at 128kb sounded better than those at 160, BUT - inferior to those encoded at 192 or higher bitrates. I suspect that many of my 128kbs were encoded pure Fraunhofer, and the 160kbs or up were encoded with WHO KNOWS WHAT?! lol! |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
On 06/04/2014 15:38, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/6/2014 6:26 AM, John Williamson wrote: I fairly quickly moved over to 128kbps average at a variable bit rate for better sound and the same file sie, and as storage has got cheaper, I've been able to afford higher bitrate mp3 storage. The only thing I have a problem understanding now is why it is so hard to by a portable music player with a decent amount of storage, as most of the top out at 16 Gigabytes. The one I use daya to day has 250Gig on board. Great googly moogly! What can you possibly do with 250 GB of compressed audio files in your pocket? How do you even remember what you have stored on there? You'd need a computer to keep track. Wait a minute. You HAVE a computer. Two, in fact. And a number of mp3 players. I don't even have a drive that large in any of my computers. I load up my 4 GB MP3 player with 128 or 192kbps files, mostly 1, 2, or 3 hour radio programs and I usually don't get through it on a two week trip away from home. And you know what? When listening through a car radio, particularly in my own car which has neither a USB host port nor a line input so I use a cassette adapter, my life wouldn't be any better if I was playing 24/96 PCM files. Your tripping experience obviously differs. My trips are anything up to a week away from home, and with 50 or so passengers, I need to keep a decent variety of music available. It's all arranged logically, so I can find any track within a few seconds, but mostly, they are arranged in playlists for different groups. The big downward jump I saw with these things was when an iPod had a 20 GB hard drive and its solid state replacement was considerably smaller. Yes. My first player came with a 10 Gig drive, which got replaced by a 20, then a 30, as the collection grew. The 250 at the moment only has about 40 Gig of music on it, with another hundred or so of videos. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 00:26:54 +1300, geoff wrote:
On 5/04/2014 10:30 p.m., Shaun wrote: LOL !!..... OK I have heard that LAME is the best MP3 encoder out there and if you use 192 or 256 Kbps rates you will get the best sound from an MP3. Naa . It's lame. Now THAT'S added to the conversation. geoff Thank you. We don't want to leave out any technical terms that might prove useful later in the thread. From my POV, if I rip a CD or want to casually listen to some tracks I've recorded MP3 is fine. As Shaun says, there are better choices and memory is cheap. The real limit is more on the playback side. The advantages of 24-bit/256 kbps are lost on earpods, while riding the train. I've always heard that the Fraunhofer codec was best. I don't know. But just hearing someone speak its name makes me want to order a pint. Steve |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
"Shaun" wrote in message ... OK I have heard that LAME is the best MP3 encoder out there and if you use 192 or 256 Kbps rates you will get the best sound from an MP3. The person who told you that has never heard of 320kbs MP3 then? I have read in the past that using a 320Kbps MP3 does not improve the sound any more that bitrates of 192Kbps or 256Kbps, They claim it was a waste of extra space. Not sure why you choose to believe what others think when you could easily compare for yourself? That was a few years ago and the source of this info was not known but I have read this from several different websites, that is why I didn't mention 320Kbps. If someone is trying to get the best sound, it would make sense to switch to a lossless codec to start with. There is a big difference between the size of a 320kbs MP3 and a lossless file (not so much between 256kbs and 320kbs) For most people in most listening conditions, the difference between 320kbs and lossless will go unoticed, that's why I use wave files for any serious listening, MP3 for everything else. I don't need lossless in the car for example, but it's great we all get to choose for ourselves! Trevor. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
"John Williamson" wrote in message ... The only thing I have a problem understanding now is why it is so hard to by a portable music player with a decent amount of storage, as most of the top out at 16 Gigabytes. The one I use daya to day has 250Gig on board. But that's a hard drive with the disadvantage of size, fragility and battery consumption to worry about right? The best alternative IMO is a player that takes SD cards, and a few of 32 or 64GB cards. (cheaper than 128 or 256GB cards, easier to organise, and you don't lose all storage if one fails) Apple won't sell one because they make FAR too much money from what they charge for memory, and the non upgradeability makes obsolecence much quicker. Simply choose another manufacturer instead. Trevor. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
On 08/04/2014 05:51, Trevor wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message ... The only thing I have a problem understanding now is why it is so hard to by a portable music player with a decent amount of storage, as most of the top out at 16 Gigabytes. The one I use daya to day has 250Gig on board. But that's a hard drive with the disadvantage of size, fragility and battery consumption to worry about right? The best alternative IMO is a player that takes SD cards, and a few of 32 or 64GB cards. (cheaper than 128 or 256GB cards, easier to organise, and you don't lose all storage if one fails) Apple won't sell one because they make FAR too much money from what they charge for memory, and the non upgradeability makes obsolecence much quicker. Simply choose another manufacturer instead. Yes, it's a hard drive, and as it has a 5 inch screen for watching videos on, it has room for a battery with a 15 hour life playing back audio. It will play videos for about 4 hours, and it is not made by Apple. It's an Archos. It has also lived in my briefcase, being chucked about and vibrated quite drastically in operation for a few years now, although the battery is reaching the end of its life. If I can find one with enough battery life (It has to manage *at least* ten hours of music playback on its own battery), I may end up buying an Android tablet and a decent size SD card, but it will need to be able to ignore the metadata when sorting the tracks for playback, as I don't fancy re-sorting or entering 9000 tracks into playlists to get them to play back in album order. The closest I've tried so far is a Windows 5 based unit, but that's limited to 32 Gigabytes of SD card. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
"John Williamson" wrote in message ... On 08/04/2014 05:51, Trevor wrote: "John Williamson" wrote in message ... The only thing I have a problem understanding now is why it is so hard to by a portable music player with a decent amount of storage, as most of the top out at 16 Gigabytes. The one I use daya to day has 250Gig on board. But that's a hard drive with the disadvantage of size, fragility and battery consumption to worry about right? The best alternative IMO is a player that takes SD cards, and a few of 32 or 64GB cards. (cheaper than 128 or 256GB cards, easier to organise, and you don't lose all storage if one fails) Apple won't sell one because they make FAR too much money from what they charge for memory, and the non upgradeability makes obsolecence much quicker. Simply choose another manufacturer instead. Yes, it's a hard drive, and as it has a 5 inch screen for watching videos on, it has room for a battery with a 15 hour life playing back audio. It will play videos for about 4 hours, and it is not made by Apple. It's an Archos. It has also lived in my briefcase, being chucked about and vibrated quite drastically in operation for a few years now, although the battery is reaching the end of its life. If I can find one with enough battery life (It has to manage *at least* ten hours of music playback on its own battery), I may end up buying an Android tablet and a decent size SD card, but it will need to be able to ignore the metadata when sorting the tracks for playback, as I don't fancy re-sorting or entering 9000 tracks into playlists to get them to play back in album order. I think everthing I have used can play my collection properly because I have always named each file with the track number first, and placed them into a folder with the album name. Rarely bother with playlists except for special purposes like parties. In any case the beauty of an Android tablet is you have hundreds of player software apps to choose from. One will do what you want. OTOH you need to get a tablet with decent audio, and that's harder to test before you buy. The closest I've tried so far is a Windows 5 based unit, Windows 8 ? but that's limited to 32 Gigabytes of SD card. Not much of a problem IMO when it takes only a couple of seconds to swap them. Hell I still have an old player that only takes 2GB cards and it's fine for MP3 playback, just not video. But the screen is too small to bother with video anyway. That's where a tablet is a must. Trevor. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
On 09/04/14 04:07, Trevor wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message If I can find one with enough battery life (It has to manage *at least* ten hours of music playback on its own battery), I may end up buying an Android tablet and a decent size SD card, but it will need to be able to ignore the metadata when sorting the tracks for playback, as I don't fancy re-sorting or entering 9000 tracks into playlists to get them to play back in album order. I think everthing I have used can play my collection properly because I have always named each file with the track number first, and placed them into a folder with the album name. Rarely bother with playlists except for special purposes like parties. In any case the beauty of an Android tablet is you have hundreds of player software apps to choose from. One will do what you want. OTOH you need to get a tablet with decent audio, and that's harder to test before you buy. The last Android based one I tried would only play tracks in a folder based on their track name in the metadata. This seemed to be hard coded in the OS subroutine that all the players used to sort the files for playback. The only way I could get it to play stuff in filename order was to download and install the Android version of Winamp from a non-approved source. The battery life was rubbish, too, so I got rid of it. My files in the album folders are mostly named A_($track name), B_($Track name), so that's equivalent to your system. I even tried using (Track number)_(Track name), and got the same result. The closest I've tried so far is a Windows 5 based unit, Windows 8 ? Windows CE version 5. It was made when Vista was the latest and greatest. It was also being sold as a "Mobile Internet Device", with a very limited set of apps, but it got rooted quite quickly. but that's limited to 32 Gigabytes of SD card. Not much of a problem IMO when it takes only a couple of seconds to swap them. Hell I still have an old player that only takes 2GB cards and it's fine for MP3 playback, just not video. But the screen is too small to bother with video anyway. That's where a tablet is a must. The problem is that I'd need to go through all my playlists and find files that I could safely delete, which would take more time than I'm willing to devote to the problem. For a fraction of the cost of a new player, I can get the battery in the old one replaced. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
MP3 Encoder
As I recall, the question that started this thread was about whether it
was possible to determine which encoder was used to create an MP3 file. I stopped by the Fraunhofer booth at the NAB show yesterday and asked that question. I got a pretty reasonable though incomplete answer. There are some places where the user can put additional data that isn't audio. Encoder developers can, and sometimes do use this space to identify themselves, but nobody makes it easy. You could probably determine by looking at a frame with a hex editor who made the encoder, if you knew how they identified themselves. It's more likely that you could tell if two files of the same bit rate were created with the same encoder. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Fraunhofer's MP3 encoder | Tech | |||
Best MP3 encoder? | Pro Audio | |||
ogg encoder for Mac 9.2? | Pro Audio | |||
OGG Encoder | Tech | |||
Best Wav --> MP3 Encoder | Pro Audio |